Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Date: August 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`AYLA PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Date: August 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`AYLA PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER,
`and JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Ayla Pharma LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,533,053 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’053 patent”). Novartis AG (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.1 Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With
`our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 10), and Patent Owner filed
`a Sur-Reply (Paper 11).
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The
`standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply,
`the Sur-Reply, and the evidence currently of record, we conclude that
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with
`respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an
`inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds asserted in the
`Petition.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Notice of Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines
`under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act issued
`March 31, 2020, Patent Owner requested, and we granted, a 30-day
`extension of the deadline for Patent Owner to file its Preliminary Response.
`Ex. 3001.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify five lawsuits as related to this proceeding: Alcon
`Research, Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., No. 1-17-cv-01244 (D. Del.); Alcon Research,
`Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 1-17-cv-00321 (D. Del.); Alcon Research, Ltd. v.
`Watson Labs. Inc., No. 1-17-cv-00252 (D. Del.); Alcon Research, Ltd. v.
`Watson Labs., Inc., No. 1:15-cv-1159 (D. Del.); and Alcon Research, Ltd. v.
`Lupin Ltd., No. 1:16-cv-00195 (D. Del.). Pet. 4; Paper 5, 2–3. In addition,
`the ’053 patent previously was challenged in IPR2018-01021, and a related
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,791,154 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’154 patent”),
`previously was challenged in IPR2016-00544, IPR2016-01640, and
`IPR2018-01020. Id.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–13 of the ’053 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 13–66):2
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`Reference(s)/Basis
`1–13
`103(a)
`Bhowmick,3 Yanni,4 and Castillo5
`
`
`2 Petitioner also relies on a Declaration from S. Craig Dyar, Ph.D., adopting
`the earlier testimony of Paul A. Laskar, Ph.D. Ex. 1042 (adopting
`Ex. 1014).
`3 WO 2008/015695 A2, published Feb. 7, 2008 (Ex. 1003).
`4 J.M. Yanni et al., The In Vitro and In Vivo Ocular Pharmacology of
`Olopatadine (AL-4943A), an Effective Anti-Allergic/Antihistaminic Agent,
`12 J. OCULAR PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS 389, 389–400 (1996)
`(Ex. 1004).
`5 US 6,995,186 B2, issued Feb. 7, 2006 (Ex. 1005).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–13
`
`1–13
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Schneider,6 Hayakawa,7
`Bhowmick, and Castillo
`Bhowmick, Schneider, and
`Castillo
`
`D. The ’053 Patent
`The ’053 patent, titled “High Concentration Olopatadine Ophthalmic
`Composition,” issued on January 3, 2017. Ex. 1002, codes (45), (54).
`The ’053 patent “relates to an ophthalmic composition containing a
`relatively high concentration of olopatadine.” Id. at 1:17–19.
`According to the ’053 patent, symptoms of “allergic conjunctivitis,”
`including “ocular irritation [and] redness” are known to be “significantly
`reduced using topical ophthalmic solutions containing olopatadine.” Id. at
`1:28–35. Using higher concentrations of olopatadine in these topical
`ophthalmic solutions leads to “significantly improved reduction of late phase
`ocular allergic conjunctivitis symptoms” and “significantly improved
`reduction of redness in the early phase.” Id. at 1:36–46. Additionally, with
`these higher concentrations, symptom relief “can be achieved through once a
`day dosing” rather than only with “greater dosing frequencies.” Id. at 1:46–
`50. These benefits come at a cost, though: “[s]olubilizing high
`concentrations of olopatadine in a stable manner has proven difficult.” Id.
`at 2:3–4. The ’053 patent describes polyethylene glycol and
`polyvinylpyrrolidone as “hav[ing] proven incapable, alone or in
`combination, of solubilizing sufficient concentrations of olopatadine in
`
`
`6 US 2011/0082145 A1, published Apr. 7, 2011 (Ex. 1006).
`7 US 5,641,805, issued June 24, 1997 (Ex. 1007).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`compositions having approximately neutral pH.” Id. at 2:10–18. In
`addition, although cyclodextrins “have the ability to solubilize significantly
`higher concentrations of olopatadine,” the “use of undesirably high
`concentrations of cyclodextrins has been found to reduce olopatadine
`efficacy and/or preservation efficacy of solutions.” Id. at 2:19–29.
`Accordingly, the invention of the ’053 patent “is directed at an ophthalmic
`composition that can provide high concentrations of olopatadine topically to
`the eye,” particularly “such a composition wherein the olopatadine is
`solubilized in solution in a stable manner, the composition exhibits
`consistent efficacy against late phase symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis,
`the composition exhibits sufficient antimicrobial activity to provide desired
`levels of preservation efficacy or any combination thereof.” Id. at 2:34–42.
`
`E. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1–13 of the ’514 patent are challenged. Claims 1 and 8 are
`independent, and claim 1 is illustrative; it recites:
`1. An aqueous ophthalmic solution for treatment of
`ocular allergic conjunctivitis, the solution comprising:
`at least 0.67 w/v % olopatadine dissolved in the
`solution;
`PEG having a molecular weight of 200 to 800;
`polyvinylpyrrolidone;
`a cyclodextrin selected from the group consisting of
`SAE-β-cyclodextrin, hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin
`and hydroxypropyl-γ-cyclodextrin; and
`water.
`Ex. 1002, 27:46–55.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution
`history pertaining to the patent,” as the claims would be construed “in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). “[T]he
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the
`term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the
`time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is
`deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim
`in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`including the specification.” Id.
`Petitioner proposes construing “at least 0.67 w/v % olopatadine
`dissolved in the solution” as “at least encompass[ing] the district court’s
`construction.” Pet. 6–8. Patent Owner does not propose construing any
`terms. Prelim. Resp. 1–62. For the reasons discussed more fully below, we
`determine that we can decide whether to institute review without construing
`any terms. Accordingly, we do not decide any claim construction issues
`expressly. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.”)).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`B. Obviousness over Bhowmick, Yanni, and Castillo
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–13 of the ’053 patent would have been
`obvious given the combined teachings of Bhowmick, Yanni, and Castillo.
`Pet. 13–38.
`
`1. Bhowmick
`Bhowmick relates to “an aqueous topical solution comprising a
`therapeutically effective amount of olopatadine.” Ex. 1003, code (57). It
`teaches that such solutions are “indicated for the treatment of signs and
`symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis.” Id. at 1:18–19. Bhowmick also
`teaches various compositions that “enhance the physical stability of” its
`olopatadine solutions, including cyclodextrin derivatives, such as “the
`hydroxypropyl derivatives of alpha-, beta-, and gamma-cyclodextrin” and
`“sulfoalkyl ether cyclodextrin.” Id. at 4:16–5:12. When discussing the use
`of hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin to stabilize olopatadine solutions “for
`ophthalmic administration,” Bhowmick teaches using “about 1.0% to about
`5%” of the cyclodextrin derivative. Id. at 6:5–6. More broadly, Bhowmick
`teaches including between about 1.65 and about 50 times as much
`hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin as olopatadine by weight. Id. at 6:18–20.
`Bhowmick teaches the use of other stabilizers, including hydroxypropyl
`methylcellulose in “concentrations ranging from about 0.001% to about
`5%.” Id. at 7:10–13. In addition, Bhowmick teaches adding other
`compounds, such as benzalkonium chloride as a preservative “in an amount
`ranging from about 0.005% to about 1%w/v,” and sodium borate as a
`buffering agent. Id. at 7:20–22, 8:14–21. Bhowmick teaches that its
`solution “is intended to be administered as . . . eye drops,” that its solution
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`has an osmolality “between 150 [and] 450 mOsm,” and that its solution “has
`a pH [of] 4 to 8, preferably pH of 6.5 to 7.5.” Id. at 8:10–12, 8:22–24.
`
`2. Yanni
`Yanni teaches that olopatadine “is an anti-allergic agent” and reports
`results of in vitro and in vivo studies of olopatadine using “human
`conjunctival mast cell preparations” as well as “guinea pigs.” Ex. 1004,
`389. Yanni teaches using solutions containing 0.001 to 1.0 w/v %
`olopatadine. Id. at 395.
`
`3. Castillo
`Castillo relates to “[t]opical formulations of olopatadine for treatment
`of allergic or inflammatory disorders of the eye.” Ex. 1005, code (57), 2:13–
`15. Castillo teaches aqueous solutions with 0.17 to 0.62 w/v % of
`olopatadine and “an amount of polyvinylpyrrolidone . . . sufficient to
`enhance the physical stability of the formulations.” Id. at code (57), 2:17–
`27, 2:66–3:2. The polyvinylpyrrolidone concentration in Castillo is taught
`as 0.1 to 3%. Id. at 3:22–25. Castillo also teaches the presence of other
`substances in the solutions, including polyols as tonicity-adjusting agents,
`benzalkonium chloride as a preservative, borates as buffering agents, and
`400-molecular-weight polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 2 w/v %.
`Id. at 3:64–67, 4:2–3, Table 5.
`
`4. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–13 of the ’053 patent would have been
`obvious given the combined teachings of Bhowmick, Yanni, and Castillo.
`Pet. 13–38. “An invention is not obvious just ‘because all of the elements
`that comprise the invention were known in the prior art.’” Broadcom Corp.
`v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Instead,
`“a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible
`rational[e] as to why the prior art references would have worked together.’”
`Id. (quoting Power-One, 599 F.3d at 1352). We are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Bhowmick, Yanni, and
`Castillo.
`Petitioner argues first that, “[i]n instituting on the challenged claims
`of the related ‘154 patent, the Board” found sufficient evidence of a reason
`to combine Bhowmick, Yanni, and Castillo, and “[s]imilar evidence exists
`here.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:20–22; Ex. 1005, 2:19–22; Ex. 1006 ¶ 7;
`Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 59, 60, 62–64, 70, 78, 79, 83, 90, 98, 119, 127, 136, 146, 149–
`151, 161, 180; Ex. 1015, 10, 25). This argument fails for two reasons.
`First, “mere statements . . . do not amount to a developed argument.”
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`2006). Thus, the mere statement that evidence exists here that is “similar” to
`that which existed in an earlier proceeding fails to carry Petitioner’s burden
`to “set forth . . . [h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable” and to “state
`[the] relevance” of the evidence cited. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), (5). A
`proper argument would explain why the evidence shows that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of
`the references. Petitioner chooses instead to “ask [us] to play archaeologist
`with the record,” which we decline to do. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d
`865, 866–68 (7th Cir. 1999).
`Second, Petitioner’s reliance on the Board’s reasoning in IPR2016-
`00544 is the incorporation of an argument “by reference from one document
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`into another document,” which is prohibited by our rules. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(a)(3). Accordingly, we conclude that this argument is insufficient to
`demonstrate a reason to combine the teachings of Bhowmick, Yanni, and
`Castillo.
`Petitioner offers a second argument for combining the teachings of
`Bhowmick and Castillo: “A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have
`been motivated to look to Castillo because, like Bhowmick, Castillo taught
`ophthalmic olopatadine solutions for treatment of allergic disorders
`comprising similar excipients.” Pet. 23. This argument also falls short.
`First, although this argument may be enough to show that the two references
`are analogous art, see Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010), simply demonstrating that a set of references are all directed to
`the same problem is not, by itself, a sufficient rationale to combine the
`references. See id. (upon finding that two references were directed to the
`same problem, proceeding to analyze whether a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been motivated to combine the references); see also In re
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (inquiry as to whether a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the references
`“picks up where the analogous art test leaves off”). Second, even if this
`argument were sufficient to show a reason to combine, it applies only to the
`combination of Castillo and Bhowmick, not to the combination of
`Bhowmick, Castillo, and Yanni on which Petitioner’s obviousness argument
`rests. Accordingly, we conclude that this argument also is insufficient to
`demonstrate a reason to combine the teachings of Bhowmick, Yanni, and
`Castillo.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`Because neither of Petitioner’s arguments sufficiently shows a reason
`to combine the teachings of Bhowmick, Yanni, and Castillo, we conclude
`that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`showing the obviousness of any challenged claim over this combination of
`references.
`
`C. Obviousness over Schneider, Hayakawa, Bhowmick, and Castillo
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–13 of the ’053 patent would have been
`obvious given the combined teachings of Schneider, Hayakawa, Bhowmick,
`and Castillo. Pet. 38–54.
`
`Schneider
`1.
`Schneider relates to “solution compositions comprising olopatadine.”
`Ex. 1006, code (57). In particular, Schneider “relates to formulations of
`olopatadine and their use for treating and/or preventing allergic or
`inflammatory disorders of the eye, nose, skin, and ear.” Id. It teaches that,
`“[i]n general, it is more desirable for active ingredients to be in solution
`rather than suspension in a pharmaceutical composition.” Id. ¶ 7.
`Schneider’s products are “pharmaceutical aqueous solution compositions,”
`id. ¶ 9, that “are used to treat . . . allergic conjunctivitis,” id. ¶ 48. The
`amount of olopatadine in Schneider is taught as “about . . . 0.60% w/v, or
`higher.” Id. ¶ 45. In addition to olopatadine, Schneider teaches adding
`several other compounds to its ophthalmic solutions, including sodium
`borate as a buffer, id. ¶ 44, water, id. ¶ 49, benzalkonium chloride as a
`preservative, id. ¶ 51, polyethylene glycol and polyvinylpyrrolidone “as
`lubricants or as viscosity agents,” id. ¶ 52, and dextrose, mannitol, sorbitol,
`propylene glycol, or glycerol as tonicity agents, id. ¶ 53. Schneider teaches
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`a composition pH between 6.0 and 7.5. Id. ¶ 44. It also teaches osmolality
`“about 150–450 mOsm, preferably 250–350 mOsm.” Id. ¶ 53.
`
`2. Hayakawa
`Hayakawa relates to “[t]opical ophthalmic formulations” containing
`olopatadine.8 Ex. 1007, code (57). Olopatadine is disclosed as having
`“human conjunctival mast cell stabilizing activity” and “significant
`antihistaminic activity.” Id. at 3:18–22. Accordingly, Hayakawa notes that
`olopatadine has both “a prophylactic effect” and “a therapeutic effect.” Id.
`at 3:22–23. Hayakawa discloses using olopatadine in concentrations ranging
`from “0.0001 to 5 w/v %,” id. at 6:43–44, with histamine inhibition
`increasing as the dose of olopatadine increases, id. at Table 1.
`
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–13 of the ’053 patent would have been
`obvious given the combined teachings of Schneider, Hayakawa, Bhowmick,
`and Castillo. Pet. 38–54.
`In arguing the obviousness of claims 1–13, Petitioner relies on the
`same arguments for reason to combine that we discussed above. Pet. 41–42
`
`
`8 Hayakawa uses “Compound A” or “11-(3-dimethylaminopropylidene)-
`6,11-dihydrodibenz[b,e]oxepin-2-acetic acid” to refer to either individual
`isomer or to a mixture of both isomers of 11-(3-dimethylaminopropylidene)-
`6,11-dihydrodibenz[b,e]oxepin-2-acetic acid. Ex. 1007, 3:10–15. This
`compound, in the hydrochloride salt of its Z isomer, is identified as
`olopatadine in Yanni. Ex. 1004, 389. Schneider identifies this compound,
`not in its hydrochloride salt, but still in its Z isomer, as olopatadine.
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 3. There is no evidence in the record contradicting the
`identification of the compound disclosed in Hayakawa as olopatadine.
`Accordingly, we use the term “olopatadine” when referring to the compound
`that Hayakawa discloses.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`(arguing that we should find a reason to combine Schneider, Bhowmick,
`Castillo, and Hayakawa because “[s]imilar evidence [to that in IPR2016-
`00544] exists here”), 46 (arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined Schneider and Castillo “because both references teach
`ophthalmic solutions for treatment of allergic disorders comprising
`olopatadine, reciting similar excipients”). As discussed above, however,
`neither of these arguments sufficiently shows a reason to combine the
`references. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the obviousness of any
`challenged claim over the combination of Schneider, Hayakawa, Bhowmick,
`and Castillo.
`
`D. Obviousness over Bhowmick, Schneider, and Castillo
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–13 of the ’053 patent would have been
`obvious given the combined teachings of Bhowmick, Schneider, and
`Castillo. Pet. 54–66. With respect to a reason to combine the references,
`Petitioner argues that “the skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`combine the teachings of Schneider, Bhowmick and Castillo because they all
`teach olopatadine solutions for treatment of allergic disorders using similar
`excipients.” Id. at 54. As discussed above, this argument is insufficient to
`show a reason to combine because it speaks only to whether the teachings of
`the references could be combined, not why a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have combined them. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the
`obviousness of any challenged claim over the combination of Bhowmick,
`Schneider, and Castillo.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the
`Reply, the Sur-Reply, and the evidence presently before us, we determine
`that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in
`showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
`Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged
`claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied,
`and no inter partes review is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00295
`Patent 9,533,053 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jitendra Malik
`Alissa Pacchioli
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`jitty.malik@katten.com
`alissa.pacchioli@katten.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Andrew Trask
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`atrask@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
